From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Security lessons from liblzma - libsystemd
In-reply-to: <CABUevExoimjHPMMpAegci5mX13uOSPbZcWvycbwZwgey3c6P_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ZgdCpFThi9ODcCsJ@momjian.us> <20240403175721.l4r55sw4vcsrgpww@awork3.anarazel.de> <CABUevExoimjHPMMpAegci5mX13uOSPbZcWvycbwZwgey3c6P_w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
	message dated "Wed, 03 Apr 2024 23:19:54 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <385937.1712181535.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:58:55 -0400
Message-ID: <385938.1712181535@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/385938.1712181535%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 7:57 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Openssh has now integrated [1] a patch to remove the dependency on
>> libsystemd
>> for triggering service manager readyness notifications, by inlining the
>> necessary function. That's not hard, the protocol is pretty simple.
>> I suspect we should do the same. We're not even close to being a target as
>> attractive as openssh, but still, it seems unnecessary.

> +1.

I didn't read the patch, but if it's short and stable enough then this
seems like a good idea.  (If openssh and we are using such a patch,
that will probably be a big enough stake in the ground to prevent
somebody deciding to change the protocol ...)

>> An argument could be made to instead just remove support, but I think it's
>> quite valuable to have intra service dependencies that can rely on the
>> server actually having started up.

> If we remove support we're basically just asking most of our linux
> packagers to add it back in, and they will add it back in the same way we
> did it. I think we do everybody a disservice if we do that. It's useful
> functionality.

Yeah, that idea seems particularly silly in view of the desire
expressed earlier in this thread to reduce the number of patches
carried by packagers.  People packaging for systemd-using distros
will not consider that this functionality is optional.

			regards, tom lane